Posted
by
samzenpuson Thursday April 19, 2012 @08:08PM
from the who's-to-blame dept.

itwbennett writes "Neal Stephenson is shouldering some of the blame for discouraging budding scientists and engineers, saying in a interview that perhaps the dark turn science fiction has taken is 'discouraging budding scientists and engineers.' For his part, Stephenson has vowed to be more optimistic. From the article: 'Speaking before a packed lecture theater at MIT yesterday, Neal Stephenson worried that the gloomy outlook prevalent in modern science fiction may be undermining the genre's ability to inspire engineers and scientists. Describing himself as a "pessimist trying to turn himself into an optimist," and acknowledging that some of his own work has contributed to the dystopian trend, he added "if every depiction of the future is grim...then it doesn't create much of an incentive to building the future."'"

If there is anything discouraging STEM, its not Neal. He's not even on the radar screen.

Slashdot brought the dragon right out for everyone to see.

How can we get our kids interested in science, which revolves around a lot of diligent work searching for truth, only to find the rewards start out with being called the teacher's pet, progressing through "being a Boy Scout", "not a 'team player'", then forcible unemployment because one feels obligated to "do that which is right"?

The comments here on Slashdot reinforced my observation that "being liked" is far more financially productive than "being right". No wonder the kids see through it.

I got canned for standing up for what I thought was right.

Many others had the same experience.

Like religion, rejection based on your beliefs comes with the territory. A manager may want something based on how well a salesman did his job, whereas an engineer may reject it based on his experience of seeing stuff like that fail in the field. Political power ultimately rules.

From what I can tell, this country no longer needs STEM workers, as other countries can do this much cheaper than we can. I am amazed at all the high-tech parts I can get from aliexpress.com.

And I am also alarmed that a lot of datasheets I am interested in are in Chinese. I have disassembled several Chinese Lithium Ion battery chargers and noted how cleverly they were made - with Chinese house-numbered parts, no less.

I am afraid to try as well. No sooner than I produce and try to sell anything, I will get sued - if for nothing more than paralyzing me until I financially die. This is on top of all the paperwork IRS requires of anyone that actually tries to DO anything in this country. Our Congress passes so much frivolous special-interest law that no-one can do anything without exposing themselves to lawsuits. Only the financially strongest can survive at that game.

We may still love science, But we find something else to do for a paycheck.

How can we get our kids interested in science, which revolves around a lot of diligent work searching for truth, only to find the rewards start out with being called the teacher's pet, progressing through "being a Boy Scout", "not a 'team player'", then forcible unemployment because one feels obligated to "do that which is right"?

To quote (of all people) Indiana Jones: [science] is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall.

And what innovation failure? I and the people around me have been innovating our asses off. I'm not going to self promote, but anyone in the world can go to http://scholar.google.com/ [google.com] and see all the incredible research that is going on if they want to.

Message to Neal: You ain't that influential.

At the talk, he was very clear in saying there is a LOT of innovation right now. He wasn't criticizing the rate of innovation, so I'm not too sure where you came up with this.

If you want to know the details, the moderator asked him why people were pessimistic about technology, and whether science fiction authors had any role to play in shaping this viewpoint. Naturally, he said that science fiction (as a whole) could write optimistic futures to help inspire scientists and engineers.

This is not completely off-base. If you've read any science fiction, you'll definitely notice the trend towards dystopias with pandemics, genetic engineering, energy crises, and overpopulation, especially in comparison to earlier sci-fi

This is not completely off-base. If you've read any science fiction, you'll definitely notice the trend towards dystopias with pandemics, genetic engineering, energy crises, and overpopulation, especially in comparison to earlier sci-fi.

I think it's because sci-fi has gotten older and more mature than it was in the 60s.

Back then, people looked at what was going on in the space program, and extrapolated from that trend (humans went from riding horses to walking on the moon in less than a century) that the future would be a bright place: they acknowledged that some problems would pop up between now and then, such as overpopulation and genetic engineering (both of these were covered in 60s Star Trek; the latter being central to Khan), but that technology and improved social systems would overcome these problems.

People at the time didn't realize that what would really happen would be that people would decide they'd rather not bother too much with pursuing science and technology (unless it helps them make fancy hand-held devices they can play games on), and certainly not with space exploration, because they'd rather spend money on wars over oil. And the naive ideas people had back in the 60s about social conditions improving have obviously turned out to be bunk, with much of western society turning back to Dark Ages-style fundamentalist religion. Nowadays, sci-fi authors are just looking at the way society has turned out over the last decade or two, and they're again extrapolating from current trends, and correctly surmising that our future is quite dark indeed.

Yeah, because science fiction in the sixties certainly didn't have any of that. The future would be a bright place, [wikipedia.org] and they certainly never wrote back then about pandemics [wikipedia.org], genetic engineering [wikipedia.org], or overpopulation. [wikipedia.org] And certainly no science fiction of the 60s had some elements of all of that. [wikipedia.org] (I admit that I couldn't think of good examples of 'pure' energy crisis memes in 60's SF, though it was an element in the above works that dealt with overpopulation.)

Go watch Star Trek TOS. If that isn't "leftist", I don't know what is: a utopian society with a big government where there's no poverty, no real use of money, etc. It basically seemed to show the supposed end-state of Marxism.

And you're wrong about fundamentalism. Go look at the numbers. In the USA back in the 60s, mainstream Protestants used to be the overwhelming majority, with only the Southern Baptists as the ones closest to "fundamentalist", and the Lutherans, Methodists, etc. basically being fairly benign (wasn't it Lutherans who first started making female preachers back in the 1500s?). The fundamentalists were a small, small minority, mainly confined to the South. Not any more. Now, the "mainstream" Protestant denominations are a minority and shrinking fast, while fundamentalist churches are growing quickly nationwide, as seen with all the "megachurches", and Roman Catholicism is growing pretty fast too with the huge influx of Latin Americans (and their brand of Catholicism is much more conservative from the more liberal Americanized version I was raised with back in the 80s). The fundamentalist Christians aren't just noiser, they're much greater in numbers. Go into some mainline Protestant churches like a Presbyterian church; half the congregation is elderly. Over the past couple decades, younger people have been turning to fundamentalism. Not coincidentally, the American population, unlike the way it was in the late 60s and 70s, is all for more war, as this is preached to them in their fundamentalist churches.

Say what? Sending the Navy into space and administering an empire that's apparently not subject to any kind of civilian authority? There's a rigid military chain of command, people obey their superiors and the captain has to say "at ease" before you can so much as slouch. Seriously, is there even a civilian government that has any kind of check on the Navy/Starfleet? I know that there's a civilian United Federation of Planets, but in terms of real executive power, they're basically as impotent as the UN. As far as I can tell, all the high-level negotiations with Romulans, etc. were conducted by admirals, not prime ministers or presidents. Isn't this exactly what right-wingers like?

Your missing the point "Space the final frontier" . What was shown in TOS was the "Frontier" where the federation civilian government wasnt as present. Starfleet in that respect was like "Space Cavalry" protecting the homesteaders,etc. The high level negotations were done between admirals because UFP and Romulus never established a formal peace, they had a ceasefire and a neutral zone(think Korea DMZ). Episodes like "Journey to Babel" and "Metamorphosis" showed federation diplomats often bossing around star

As I told someone else, you're wrong. The number of fundamentalists in the US is at an all-time high, and they outnumber all the mainline Protestant denominations now. They're not more vocal, they're much more numerous. "Megachurches" didn't exist 50 years ago.

And BSG wasn't about the future, it was about the past. And where are you seeing this optimistic "morning pulp"? I sure haven't seen any in the last 5 years. I can only think of one movie that was about humans in space: Avatar. All the other sc

If you want to know the details, the moderator asked him why people were pessimistic about technology, and whether science fiction authors had any role to play in shaping this viewpoint. Naturally, he said that science fiction (as a whole) could write optimistic futures to help inspire scientists and engineers.

Which is interesting, but wrong, because it incorrectly assumes that the pessimism is misplaced, that the fault therefore lies with the public, and that the science fiction affected the public as a whole. In reality, people are pessimistic about technology in large part because it is so frequently misused and abused, which is largely because the @$^@#$& science fiction writers keep giving world governments ideas. 1984? TVs with webcams. Fahrenheit 451? Book burnings. Brave New World? Witness a public education system that no longer teaches us to question, a drug war resulting in huge subcultures that are shunned from society as a whole, or the mass high fructose corn syrup addiction that addles much of the public. The governments don't read these books and think, "It would suck if society were ruled in a draconian manner," but rather, "Society is going to be ruled in a draconian manner eventually, so I'd better take steps to secure my place at the helm." And this is why science fiction causes the public to become pessimistic about technology.

Anathem is another recent book that is pretty good though it is, like most of his book, too long.

Reamde is total crap. Its pretty much a bad ghost written Tom Clancy action flick. It has no redeeming technological insights or interesting dialogs which is what make Stephenson's good books worth reading.

Stephenson was trying to do an interactive, online, kind of book. Not sure what happened to it, but I assume it sucked up a lot of time and money, and presumably he phoned in Reamde to try and raise some cas

It's deliberately not quite accurate history so you can't get any "history lessons" out of it - it's entertainment.I'd say the setting of Cryptonomicon interested you but not the Baroque setting because the style is fairly similar in both.

Message to Neal: You ain't that influential.

Notice above that he's writing about an entire genre and not just himself. I'd blame Micheal "doctors should have nukes" Crichton for an endless series of "smart people will kill you so stop science dead in it's tracks now" plot

My favourite Stephenson is "The Diamond Age", mostly for the hope it engenders for our future - a future with a mature nanotechnology might have it's own problems, but it will certainly provide for more possible solutions to the problems we have right now.

I totally agree, and I think the "Young Lady's Illustrated Primer" is the best piece of sci-fi inspiration that anyone could have. If I were to complain about our slowness of progress, I wouldn't blame science. I'd blame the entrenched interests of our civil authorities. One glaring mistake we know we make is in how we educate young people. Everyone who knows anything about this stuff understands just how much better we can do, and there's aren't even technological impediments holding us back. It's just tha

I was there. He prefixed most comments with "I don't want to be prescriptive to future authors" or "It's dangerous to make predictions because they were often wrong." He certainly never claimed, or even insinuated, that he was partly or even mostly responsible.

While I certainly wouldn't say one person bears a large load of responsibility, don't knock the idea in general. Star Trek had some very real influence on geeks. They saw a Utopia in it that they'd like to see happened, and some worked towards it. The cell phone really did get inspiration from Star Trek communicators. There was an interview with one of the guys at Motorola who worked on it saying something along the lines of how he saw the communicator not as an impossible sci-fi gadget, but as a challenge to make.

Media can influence culture, and sci-fi can for sure influence geeks. That doesn't mean that authors should necessarily take it on as some kind of personal responsibility, but there's something to be said for Utopian fiction and it does seem to be in somewhat short supply these days.

Neal's books totally rock. He's one of the most influential sci-fi writers out there. There's exactly one book I read with my Dad, Cryptonomicon, and it was so cool that I build a hardware random number generator, and he wrote some software for one-time-pad encryption, and we had fun sending each other stupid e-mails that no one would ever be interested in decrypting, but they couldn't if they tried. Actually I sometimes wonder if our super-secure little unknown communication channel caused some poor NSA dweeb to have to listen to our phones for a year or two. If so... sorry!

Yesterday on Vermont Public Radio, Vermont Edition spoke with an author about the rise in "dark fiction" for youth. There were many good points brought up, but it got me thinking off in another direction...

As someone else here has mentioned, it isn't so much that there's dark fiction, there's always been dark fiction. I see a bigger problem in that the Utopian fiction (like Star Trek) has diminished. The overall tide has gotten significantly darker.

I remember as a kid my first real book was "20,000 Leagues Under the See", which while it had dark elements, was really typical turn-of-the-century Utopian science fiction. Shortly after that, the WW-III nuclear apocolypse stuff typical of the time started moving into the mix. But even as that and environmental disaster sci-fi mixed in, the Utopian stuff was still present.

To me the real tipping point seems to be as the "corporate dystopia" of which William Gibson and Cyberpunk was part. Around that time, the Utopian sci-fi started dropping off. In more recent years, I've started seeing more "end times" sci-fi, too. (Think "Terminal World", "Feersum Endjin", "The City at the End of Time", "Spin", to name a few.) Peter F. Hamilton and Iain Banks are still pretty optimistic, though with the latter, in "State of the Art" he made it pretty clear that Earth is not part of "The Culture."

No, Stephenson isn't to blame, but he's participated in the problem, and hasn't been part of the solution.

Personally, I think if the swinging pendulum, hope we're pretty much at the limit of the swing, and hope the whole system hasn't gone nonlinear or fallen off its bearings.

To me the real tipping point seems to be as the "corporate dystopia" of which William Gibson and Cyberpunk was part.

I recently ran into someone I hadn't seen for years, who used to be heavily into cyberpunk back in those days. I asked him how that was going, and he doesn't read or cosplay any of that any more. I asked why, and he said, "It's not fun any more, it's coming true."

To me the real tipping point seems to be as the "corporate dystopia" of which William Gibson and Cyberpunk was part.

I recently ran into someone I hadn't seen for years, who used to be heavily into cyberpunk back in those days. I asked him how that was going, and he doesn't read or cosplay any of that any more. I asked why, and he said, "It's not fun any more, it's coming true."

It reminds me of the old Judge Dredd comics (well I guess they still make em, I havent really read em for a decade). In the back there would always be a letters to the editor where fans would write in to say what they liked and didnt like in the various 2000AD strips. Regularly however you'd get kids writing in and drooling about how awesome Dredd is and how cool living in megacity 1 would be. The editors would absolutely flip it at them, because the kids where missing that whilst Dredd had redeeming qualitys he was still an authoritarian fascist and megacity 1 was a terrible distopia that no sane person would actually WANT to live in.

What scares me, is that is the diminishment of of the intellectual and structural independence of the judiciary (seriously america, you need to get rid of voting for your judges, it sounds like a good idea on paper, but its brought you the phenomena of conservative and liberal judges that would be mystifying anywhere else. remember if election funding can corrupt politicians it can corrupt judges too). This , combined with the growth of the surveilance state, and all the various technologies of discipline , we're actually turning , slowly, into that very distopia 2000AD warned us about.

Its quite scary, but worst of all, some people actually want it.

I think however, SCI-FI authors *should* write about distopias, because its one of the few ways we can really play out the various scenarios in our head and take control over whether technology is indeed going to be a liberating force, or instead our shiny new ball and chains.

I think you're one of those people that hasn't read enough dystopian fiction to draw all the right parallels. We are not "nowhere near any of those" unless you ignore, say, CISPA about to go in front of congress; Monsanto; NDAA; our wars; the conspiracy against acknowledgment of climate change...

Sci-fi is a reflection of contemporary culture and its view of the future. Back in the Star Trek days, westerners had a pretty optimistic view of the future. After all, they had just launched people into space, and were about to land them on the moon. Even back in Verne's day, people had very optimistic views of the future (they didn't anticipate two world wars) and the benefits to society that technology would bring. Finally, back in the Star Trek days, people were willing to spend money (through the government) to pursue big projects like this. Now, they're not. Extrapolating from present trends, the idea that humans (at least from western nations) are going to go anywhere beyond LEO anytime in the next 200 years is folly. The idea that society is going to collapse and kids are going to fight each other to the death in gladiatorial combat is far more realistic. Sci-fi authors are simply extrapolating from current trends, and correctly so.

People were probably saying things like that just before the Roman Empire collapsed. "This is just temporary! Everything will be great again in a few years!"

Besides, things weren't really all that great in decades past either. The 60s saw us getting into the stupid Vietnam War, the 70s were full of inflation, a terrible economy, an energy crisis, and we had a Cold War from the 50s until ~1990. People were optimistic in many cases, but they were largely ignoring the serious problems that were really goin

I see a bigger problem in that the Utopian fiction (like Star Trek) has diminished.

Yes, what the galaxy needs is a Federation that puts strong Americans in charge (to rein in the temperamental Russian crew members) of ships to spread our culture (and their seed) throughout the galaxy.

To me the real tipping point seems to be as the "corporate dystopia" of which William Gibson and Cyberpunk was part.

At least not in my opinion. In classic dystopias like 1984 or Brave New World, there is virtually no space left for individual freedom and choice. Cyberpunk, however, is all about the spaces in between in which individuals can make choices and possibly change things. Philosopher Andrew Feenberg agrees:

The world Gibson describes is grim but not strictly speaking dystopian. It is true that elites rule it with immensely powerful means, but those means are so complex that they give rise to all sorts of phenomena over which no one really has control. There are many small openings through which a clever hacker can enter the system and commit a variety of unprogrammed deeds. The future is not clear but may yet be altered by human action on the network. (Alternative Modernity: The Technical Turn in Philosophy and Social Theory, 1995, p. 140)

The happy happy, joy joy world of Star Trek: The Next Generation, on the other hand, strikes me as truly static and dystopian. Nearly all cultural expression is centuries old. Every conflict can be solved through reason: there are no genuinely intractable differences of opinion or incompatible values among honest people. Only a totalitarian society could so thoroughly crush dissent and eliminate difference. I think I would go stark raving mad.

I believe a better future is possible and worth fighting for, but compared to ST:NG I'd rather have Gibson's grungy cyberpunk any day. It is dirty, flawed, corrupt - but also iredeemably human. Its diversity and vigor are resistant to the totalitarian disease. The tragedy is that cyberpunk came true: but now we seem to be passing out the other side. A cyberpunk world might be a let-down beside visions of the future we once thought we would enjoy, but compared to many genuine possibilities it's possitively upbeat. Take a look at the world of Paulo Bacigalupi's Windup Girl, for example (which despite its fantastic elements feels right in the same way that Neuromancer once did) - though even he leaves a small space for hope.

While I agree about the worth of utopian visians, I do not agree with the criticism of dystopian science fiction. The scholars of the Frankfurt School struggled to find an alternative to what they saw as a damaged society. When the human imagination limits itself to the realistic limitations of the world we live in, it serves to accept and conceal that world's flaws. Between the horrors of Stalinism and the alienation of capitalism, the Frankfurt scholars could not imagine an plausible alternative. So to find hope, they were deliberately negative. The injustices of the existing order pointed to the possibility of something better. Herbert Marcuse writes:

The critical theory of society possesses no concepts which could bridge the gap between the present and its future; holding no promise and showing no success, it remains negative. Thus it wants to remain loyal to those who, without hope, have given and give their life to the Great Refusal. At the beginning of the fascist era, Walter Benjamin wrote: It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us. (One Dimensional Man, 1964, p. 257)

There was an interview with one of the guys at Motorola who worked on it saying something along the lines of how he saw the communicator not as an impossible sci-fi gadget, but as a challenge to make.Media can influence culture, and sci-fi can for sure influence geeks.

The problem is - work on mobile telephony long predates Star Trek. The first car phones were deployed in 1946! Not only that, but mobile communicators in SF predate Star Trek as well - witness the systems used by the crew of the Bell

The cell phone really did get inspiration from Star Trek communicators. There was an interview with one of the guys at Motorola who worked on it saying something along the lines of how he saw the communicator not as an impossible sci-fi gadget, but as a challenge to make.

I always thought that was inspired by Maxwell Smart's shoe phone. Indeed, many baby boomers use the term "shoe phone" to refer to cell phones.

It seems more to me that themes in fiction tend to pick up the overall "attitude" of the society with respect to progress (and other things), rather than the other way around. There's probably some amplification effect from that, like your example with the engineer, but if you look at the timelines, progressive utopian fiction was generally following up on series of scientific breakthroughs - e.g. Star Trek was riding the wave of new tech with roots in WW2 that got appropriated for peaceful purposes. Before it, think of Jules Verne - sure, he did predict a lot of things to come, but his books were based more on the progress that he observed in his time.

For another example, in the country of my birth - the USSR - science fiction (even of the "unofficial", underground kind) was largely optimistic. It had its share of social dystopias early on (like "We"), but after 60s or so, when the horrors of revolution and NKVD became history, no-one could come up with a credible "bad" scenario: the future was universally seen as a time of better things to come due to rapid scientific progress. After the country crashed, Russian sci-fi reacted by turning all doom and gloom: not even sci-fi dystopias, but alt history of all things became the most prolific genre...

With that in mind, the current trend of dystopian sci-fi likely just reflects the overall "meh" attitude towards the prospects of our scientific development. I do wonder what the zombie stories are all about, though...

Effects of advertisement and other forms of brainwashing on motivation, combined with comment on lack of education and culture.

Original zombies were commanded by the masters who "revived" the dead into them, and died again once their purpose is fulfilled. Now all they do is expand their ranks (by infecting others), hate everyone who is not a zombie, crave for something they don't seem to benefit from (brains), and act in the most primitive manner possible.

While I certainly wouldn't say one person bears a large load of responsibility, don't knock the idea in general. Star Trek had some very real influence on geeks. They saw a Utopia in it that they'd like to see happened, and some worked towards it.

I'm a research scientist and I was heavily influenced by Star Trek as a kid. That utopian world in which technology is a positive force for humanity and where rational thought and curiosity replace ignorance-based fear and militarism was a island of serenity in a small town full of bible-thumping, anti-intellectual fundamentalists. I consumed a lot of science fiction and fantasy, but Star Trek made a particular impression on me. When I was finally exposed to real-world science, I fell in love with Chemistry in my first year of college with cheerful optimism that I might help move the real world slightly closer to that fictional world. I even lobbied hard to name my son Jean Luc.

I do, however, disagree with TFA; when I was in college we didn't have the Internet to tell us about every cute Nature or Science article, so we were left with our imagination and what we could photocopy in the science library. If anything, I think the danger for potential scientists now is that their opinions about what science is are being shaped too much by under-qualified "science journalists" writing pseudo-fiction about real research. It replaces the unbridled imagination and curiosity of young minds--which fiction reinforces--with an erroneous understanding of what modern science actually is. Worse, it emphasizes the unsubstantiated claims about potential future applications that have become a necessary part of the scientific literature (i.e., the chest thumping that under-funding research necessitates) which leads to disappointment when young people are exposed to actual research. This phenomenon culminates in a perception that science fiction--dystopian or otherwise--is even more realistic and fact-based than ever. I think what science fiction needs is more imagination.

It is not an inflated sense of self-worth that is the loci of his statements, but rather a sense of social responsibility that is so rare in this consumer-based society that it is in danger of becoming extinct.

He has a valid point; most scifi today portrays a dystopian world, but that is not commentary on the future, but rather the present. The fictional writings of an era have always been heavily influenced by the emotions which surround the writers. Artists have long been the canary down the mine shaft..

If you were to ascribe blame to any particular group for the perceived slowing of innovation, the best target would be the lawyers. A dystopian future story pales in comparison to a stampeding herd of patent lawyers when it comes to stifling scientific and technological progress.

You can't even daydream about something new without getting sued for infringing multiple patents anymore.

They would have grown-up watching the original Star Trek (me, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates) or the Next Generation Trek (younger folks). Those were both very positive influences showing that technology will improve the human condition. In fact given the ratings of 10% of U.S. households (about 9 million homes), I bet more people were watching trek than reading the negative sci-fi novels.

Thing is, I don't believe it's sci-fi's job to sell technology at all. Even the most positive stories should be tempered with a bit of pessimism.

SF is supposed to ask questions about what technology does to society, and what that means to the society being changed... stories that are all sunshine and rainbows are nothing more then speculative fantasy.

Between the cold war and the religious mania of the early 80s, "If Jesus doesn't get you, Oppenheimer will" was the phrase of the day.

I find that a grim outlook actually makes me dig my heels in much more so. Five years ago, I wasn't too engrossed with privacy, politics or anything like that. These days, I seem to be going out of my way to make noise and generate resolve amoung the population. I think there is an element of Ying/Yang to it, the harder certain people will push to empower themselves or the folks that pay them, the more people will stand their ground.

"Let me say at the risk of seeming ridiculous that the true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love." - Che.

I was actually at his talk. He didn't discount the tech boom. His point is that the tech boom wasn't "big" science. If anything, it might have sucked some of the air out of the room for science. He was arguing that the Intertubes landed out our feet, everyone was like "wow, WTF is this and how can we use!?" and stopped doing a lot of other things. That is almost certainly true. We diverted a huge number of people who might otherwise have been "hard" scientist into working in and around the 'tubes. He was talking more about striving for grand science, not just what we call "tech".

I have friends smart technical friends writing apps for cell phones. My most technically brilliant friends work for Google (an ad company) and Facebook (also an ad company). These people are near Savants with how scary smart they are, and their efforts are their brilliance is being funneled into figuring out ways to make you click on ads. For better or for worse, we have turned a huge portion of our most technical minds to working on shit that, in the grand scheme of things, doesn't mean a whole a lot.

Now, how much of that is a lack of optimism for the future and how much of it is that Google makes a fuck-ton of money? Eh, I think the money probably has more to do with it. That said, I wouldn't totally discount the subtle effect of sci-fi. I know sci-fi influenced me into going into engineering. I wanted carbon nanotube space elevators. The (delusional) dream of working on something like that is the only thing that lured me away from programming and into engineering. If not for sci-fi, there is a non-trivial chance that my path would have sent me down the road of making apps for people's cell phones instead of making the chips that go inside of them.

That's the problem right there: management is vastly overrated as a profession; it's interesting that moving into management is always perceived as a step up. I've seen plenty of managers expressing shock and horror at finding that some of their underlings make more than they do, and it seems that they've quickly moved to address that issue; it doesn't happen all that often anymore. Management is important and all that, but it does seem that somehow we got stuck in a loop with inflated egos pushing up inflated salaries and vice versa.

Another problem is that a lot of companies seem to have problems coming up with good career paths for scientists and engineers. Especially career paths that don't end up in management. The other day, a fellow contractor working for my client asked me to provide input for his yearly appraisal. One section of the form was titled "future potential", where I was asked my opinion on what level the person would be able to attain in 5 years time, and what level he'd be at the top of his career. The choices were jobs like "programme manager", "department manager", "division manager"... the only option that didn't have the word manager in it was "CEO". And this is supposed to be a career path for an IT architect working for a tech firm?

In general, techies are poorly understood, poorly managed, underpaid and not well respected. And all of these go hand in hand. Small wonder that young people are choosing other career options.

For all his 80s and early 90s doom-and-gloom fiction, the future turned out to be pretty bright. TV and radio media is dying-out, being replaced with the instant gratification of the internet media. No need to wait until 8 o'clock to see your favorite show; or wait for MTV to play your favorite song; just watch it now online.

People are talking directly to one another (okay typing to one another) and no longer believing the lies/blatant omissions coming from the old media. The press is once again the people, where it belonged all along. Things are being revealed that were never talked about before.

We now have computers that fit in our pockets, but are ~1000 times faster than the computer Mr. Stephensen used to type his novels. Instead of being confined to just our local community of friends, we can met people of similar interests across the continent. (I've met all kinds of people through facebook -- common goal: Restore the bill of rights. End the wars. Balance the budget.)

No the future's not perfect, but certainly better than the "I feel like slitting my wrist" future described by Neal.

All war since the dawn of time, in fact all human conflict, is driven by control of resources. Since the first caveman clubbing his neighbor to steal his fire and womenfolk, to the Viking raids, Zulu Slave War. War of the Sabines, East India Company, American Indian Wars, Seven Years' War, Wars of the Roses, that whole Warring States thing. Even the more recent conflicts such as World War 2 where Germany invaded the rest of the world for "lebensraum" and Japan invaded China for control of it's oil. Or the V

The people who think about becoming scientists are actually smart enough to discern at a relatively young age between sci-fi and reality. Survey how many smart kids who saw "Blade Runner" found that movie disenfranchised them about the future, or whether they just thought it was really cool.

To some extent people don't want to be scientists because as a society we tend to devalue or outcast smart people and our children pick up on that, but to a larger extent it's because many scientists and engineers are severely underpaid for the many years of studying and training it takes to get in the field. One of my friends has spent 7 years of education, getting her Master's and PhD from one of the top schools in the country and having her thesis put in a top journal, and is now getting paid less than I made my first year as a severely underpaid software engineer at a start-up. She could have skipped school entirely and gone into the plumbing trade and her lifetime earnings would have improved. What do you expect when that's the case? (Also, many of the claims that we lack scientists and engineers are actually corporations who mean we lack cheap scientists and engineers, and are vying for H1Bs.)

Stephenson should feel safe in the knowledge that he has not affected budding scientists and engineers in that way, and thankfully most of them will never have to deal with his writing that's as self-important as he seems to be. (After reading a little of his work, I thought/hoped I was done with him. Now he finds another way to be pompous and annoying.)

Seriously -- Snow Crash was alright and had it's place but Neal Stephenson is far from the technological catalyst he thinks he is.And frankly Neal should get stuffed for failing to recognize the darkness and dire warnings embedded in many of H.G. Well's stories that still have relevance today. If H.G. Wells can't stall progress and innovation -- who the hell is Neal to say he's even partly to blame?

What I am convinced of is that I will never bother to read a single other book by Neal Stephenson -- I couldn't make it half way through Cryptonomicon before it got too boring and painfully long winded to read and Reamde, while at least starting out at a faster clip quickly devolved into a complete pile of contrived claptrap complete with Russian Mobsters who feel the need to explain themselves, a British Intelligence Agent who bangs everything she can and a Jihadi Terrorist who could double as a CNN Anchor.

Bring in a new Star Trek so we can have a sense of adventure and hope with future technology.Enough with the arrogant scientist tries to invent new source of power / robots / travel and causes mass explosions / killer robots / aliens to kill us all.Various treks did have issues with casting, plot, time-travel/hollodeck episodes, but it still always made me feel good about tomorrow.

i dont think so. i rather think freedom of speech is not just a recreational activity, it is vital to the ongoing survival of the human species. same for the other rights that suffer when all of space is controlled by a military dictatorship, aka, 'the federation'

same for the other rights that suffer when all of space is controlled by a military dictatorship, aka, 'the federation'

You fail at Star Treks. The government is the United Federation of Planets, which has an elected President and representitves. It's not much different than today's democratic governments. Starfleet is the military/exploration arm of the Federation. Please turn in your geek card.

Mr. Stephenson, you're just part of a much larger bunch. Technophobic literature and movies have been around for a long time. The mad scientist has been a stock character since Frankenstein, and these days he's usually combined with today's other knee-jerk evildoer, the businessman. George Lucas wanting to show technology defeated by cute, fuzzy little commercial tie-ins probably had a lot more effect than your writings--again, with all due respect, and no indication of relative quality implied.

How many films these days are masturbatory fantasies for the greens? Rise of the Planet of the Apes, The Day After Tomorrow, The Hunger Games.... or TV series, like the History Channel's Life After Humans.

All that said, you're right to the extent that you're certainly not helping. Once upon a time, Lloyd Biggle Jr. accurately said, as best I can recall, "Given a bunch of people in a sewer, mainstream literature will lovingly describe those who are content to stay there. Science fiction will write about those trying to get out." That's at best less true than it was.

I think a large part of the blame must go to publishers, who have apparently only been interested in 'literary' SF about dark characters (preferably written by raving socialists) over the last few years. This is probably why 60% of the best-selling SF e-books on Amazon were self-published, last I checked.

...given programming legend Michael Abrash (now currently at Valve Software) just announced that he's currently researching wearable computing more or less as a direct result of Neal Stephenson's book Snow Crash!

His post [valvesoftware.com] on the Valve blog is really interesting and worth reading.

I've always gotten the impression that the dark and dystopian futures prevalent in cyberpunk and related genres are the result of corruption and abuse of the power and potential of technology. They are a warning against what technology can become if not applied responsibly. Most tech-heavy sci-fi ends up being a warning against potential results of some new science and technology.

Snow Crash . . . is basically reality now . . . Diamond Age is a better example. It portrayed two opposing views of nano tech implementation: centralized vs. decentralized production. Either way it demonstrated the potential of nanotechnology. And, hey, now we have people building 3D printers in garages and using them to make toys for their kids rather than enslave the underclass.

Don't get me wrong, I love his work.. But that's like saying The Terminator discourages roboticists from picking up a screwdriver. If anything it's spawned more because of the awareness of the field and how much of an influence it would have on our lives today.

The futures grim, but it has jack squat to do with science fiction stories. Instead it has to do with the cold hard realities of outsourcing and a lack of jobs. People don't want to go into a field without a future, especially when the people who would go into such a field tend to be more logic bound than passion bound to begin with. Why would anyone go into a field when society places no value in doing so?

I can't think of a field that has more effect in making a more interesting future than software development. Well maybe stuff to do with physics and/or genetics but even that usually comes down to relying on software somehow.

>> Why would anyone go into a field when society places no value in doing so?

Because they love the work?Personally I went into software development because I couldn't conceive of doing anything else. The fact it pays better than average (or even at all) was entirely coincidental and lucky for me. It truly wasn't a factor in my career decision making. As a matter of fact I don't think I ever really made a decision to be a developer, as much as just continued to do what I do.

I've observed that nearly always, people that choose software development only because they think it pays well:a) Have no intuitive feel for it, so mostly dont even understand how or why to write good code, let alone actually ever do it.b) Are often unhappy at work.c) Have changed their career path radically at least once.

These type of people need to get into sales or something ASAP because their low quality work just gives the rest of us who are career professionals a bad image, and they will ultimately flunk out on their own anyway given enough time.

When I was growing up in the 60s the only ones in the school that didn't believe in evolution and the Earth being billions of years old were the couple of jehovah witness kids. Now we have members of Congress proudly proclaiming they are Creationists. Roughly a quarter to a third of the country is anti science which is a huge number of potential scientists and futurists. I'm sure many will pointy out that they aren't the mostly likely candidates for scientists but that's not entirely true because some scien

I am a fan of some of his works. Actually, I'm a fan of good sci fi literature in general but "Snow Crash" is among my favorites. I have yet to read the sequel. Anyway, I think its noble but misguided for him to foot some of the blame because I don't see how it could in any way shape or form be his fault. His novels are often dark and distopian but I never came away thinking his novels convey a message to eschew science and technology.

A good story needs some source of conflict; otherwise, there's just nothing to talk about. For hard science fiction, generally, the science and technology is going to be a primary focus of the novel; the author invents a setting and visualizes how real actors would respond in such a setting. Thus, the setting drives the plot. Therefore, it's only natural that the technology is going to be a source of tension. If you look for other sources of tension, like interpersonal problems, then you might just end up with a space opera.

George RR Martin is doing a good job of making us not want to let the world go back to a feudal society. Or have dragons. Apparently before you can take over the world with them first you have to raise them and send them to college and 8000 pages later you still haven't done anything with them.

While I have seen my share of bad foreign code, there have also been excellent foreign coders.

The difference, I think, is who is "selling" of the coding services. Think of the most slimy American used car salesman (sorry to my friends that are in car sales! Not talking about you!!), and imagine he is selling programming "talent" in another country. He knows that he just has to get his foot in the door and make a sale, and he makes his commission. So, he gets some mediocre (at b